Coach Discussion: Paul Maurice: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

[sipowicz]

You forgot MAF is on his way to setting an all top record for top playoff goaltending performance of all time and you are actually comparing him to Pavs.

No, what I said was that the Jets made Fleury's job extremely easy with mostly perimeter shots, no Jets ever in Fleury's face, Fleury didn't have to work hard against the Jets and just about any goaltender would have had an easy time the way the Jets attacked and the way the Knights played in front of him.

 

[Positive]

The Moose got swept because Comrie is a brutal goaltender. You would know that if you actually watched hockey.

If you don't think Niku and Lemieux were better options than some of the players Maurice put in the lineup then I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Maurice is almost as bad as Babcock when it comes to playing underperforming veterans instead of younger deserving players. He might even have gotten away with it if Hellebuyck hadn't crapped the bed Pavelec-style.

Misconception. Maurice has granted huge minutes, roles and responsibility to rookies and sophomores in the last several years. Connor, Laine, Ehlers, and even Roslovic all spent time on the first line. Connor is still on it. Bucky is our starter instead of Mason, etc. Morrissey, Scheifs etc. He's effectively handed over the reins to the youngsters.

So you've watched a few Moose games. That's awesome. For sure that makes you a better evaluation of NHL talent than a professional coach (team of coaches actually) who watch games at ice-level, practices with these guys, reviews tape with them, travels with them, and interacts with them on a nearly daily basis. That he worked with to attain 52 wins, 114 pts, and 2 playoff series wins.

Lining up the tired, old 'expert' fan tropes on how 'we should have won this':

- Should have 'played heavy' and hit more. That's always a good one. Course hitting doesn't always correlate to winning; it usually means you didn't have as much possession, but who cares? It sounds good. Eddie Shore, old-time hockey...

- Should have 'changed strategies'. That's my favorite. 'He didn't change strategies so that's why we lost'. Can't say exactly what strategy. Nebulous at best, and it totally exonerates individual performances.

- Should have 'given the young guys a chance'. Because a good AHL player can instantly transition to their NHL affiliate and have the same or greater success, right? Because they are young superstars who are being held back; any dummy should see they should be inserted into the NHL playoffs against elite 110+ pt division-winning teams without a problem. Don't even need a practice. And the conference finals is usually the best time to do it.

For the record I really like Niku. But saying Maurice is a bad coach because of the tropes above, and that he didn't play apparent superstar Brendan Lemieux is ridiculous.

 

[Positive]

No, what I said was that the Jets made Fleury's job extremely easy with mostly perimeter shots, no Jets ever in Fleury's face, Fleury didn't have to work hard against the Jets and just about any goaltender would have had an easy time the way the Jets attacked and the way the Knights played in front of him.

That's some pretty selective memory there. Even the Vegas press was lauding Flower for keeping them in games 3 and 4. Numerous glorious chances by Scheif, Buff and heck even Myers in with a breakaway. Stoning Perreault, Wheeler in close. You could make a minute-long highlight reel with just Fleury of this series.

 

[Weezeric]

Does Maurice read better than you? That at least would be a step in the right direction.

You know that vegas outhit San Jose in all but one game in their series and the reverse was true about the jets series right?

Sorry, don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative....

 

[sipowicz]

That's some pretty selective memory there. Even the Vegas press was lauding Flower for keeping them in games 3 and 4. Numerous glorious chances by Scheif, Buff and heck even Myers in with a breakaway. Stoning Perreault, Wheeler in close. You could make a minute-long highlight reel with just Fleury of this series.

Aside from Schief, Stats and a couple Laine shots rung off the posts who was ever a threat to score in the series? I'll stick to Fleury had an easy time with the Jets, not saying he didn't play well, no he didn't let in any soft ones like the guy on the ice across from him but for the most part everything was pretty routine and he stopped shots that any decent NHL goalie should and would.

 

[Weezeric]

Precisely.

Maybe they will understand better if they read it slowly while speaking the words out loud?

It doesn't matter how slowly you read it, if it doesn't match up with reality....

 

[The Ugly Truth]

Misconception. Maurice has granted huge minutes, roles and responsibility to rookies and sophomores in the last several years. Connor, Laine, Ehlers, and even Roslovic all spent time on the first line. Connor is still on it. Bucky is our starter instead of Mason, etc. Morrissey, Scheifs etc. He's effectively handed over the reins to the youngsters.

So you've watched a few Moose games. That's awesome. For sure that makes you a better evaluation of NHL talent than a professional coach (team of coaches actually) who watch games at ice-level, practices with these guys, reviews tape with them, travels with them, and interacts with them on a nearly daily basis. That he worked with to attain 52 wins, 114 pts, and 2 playoff series wins.

Lining up the tired, old 'expert' fan tropes on how 'we should have won this':

- Should have 'played heavy' and hit more. That's always a good one. Course hitting doesn't always correlate to winning; it usually means you didn't have as much possession, but who cares? It sounds good. Eddie Shore, old-time hockey...

- Should have 'changed strategies'. That's my favorite. 'He didn't change strategies so that's why we lost'. Can't say exactly what strategy. Nebulous at best, and it totally exonerates individual performances.

- Should have 'given the young guys a chance'. Because a good AHL player can instantly transition to their NHL affiliate and have the same or greater success, right? Because they are young superstars who are being held back; any dummy should see they should be inserted into the NHL playoffs against elite 110+ pt division-winning teams without a problem. Don't even need a practice. And the conference finals is usually the best time to do it.

For the record I really like Niku. But saying Maurice is a bad coach because of the tropes above, and that he didn't play apparent superstar Brendan Lemieux is ridiculous.

Just like Babcock, Maurice inserted those younger players out of necessity. And once they succeeded they pretty much forced his hand into keeping them in the lineup. If Stuart, Thorburn and Pavelec were still around I wouldn't be surprised if they had been put in by Maurice.

Mason lost his gifted starter's position because even Ray Charles could see how bad he was this year and then he turned into a pane of glass. Not even Maurice could justify keeping Mason in net.

Based on your argument (a.k.a. "Argument from authority") no "expert" would ever trade Filip Forsberg for Martin Erat, right? Or PK Subban for Shea Weber? Or Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson? Or Tyler Seguin for Loui Eriksson? Or keep playing Mark Stuart and Ondrej Pavelec year after year? Because "experts" would never do something *really* stupid, right?

Good players can win without good coaching. (Winnipeg regular season)
Bad players can win with good coaching. (Vegas)
Good players can lose with bad coaching. (Winnipeg final series)

[Of course, it's not that simple and good/bad goaltending and "luck" plays a significant factor in the outcome of games.]

You certainly seem to like the histrionics: "Eddie Shore, old-time hockey", "superstar Brendan Lemieux"... It's probably pointless trying to get you to understand.

 

[Ducky10]

Aside from Schief, Stats and a couple Laine shots rung off the posts who was ever a threat to score in the series? I'll stick to Fleury had an easy time with the Jets, not saying he didn't play well, no he didn't let in any soft ones like the guy on the ice across from him but for the most part everything was pretty routine and he stopped shots that any decent NHL goalie should and would.

Buff, Little, Ehlers, Connor, Morrissey, Trouba, Copp, Perreault, Wheeler. All had grade A chances to score, it happened.

A lot of saves Fleury made were routine, a lot were not. To pretend otherwise is wilfull blindness.

 

[Ducky10]

Just like Babcock, Maurice inserted those younger players out of necessity. And once they succeeded they pretty much forced his hand into keeping them in the lineup. If Stuart, Thorburn and Pavelec were still around I wouldn't be surprised if they had been put in by Maurice.

Mason lost his gifted starter's position because even Ray Charles could see how bad he was this year and then he turned into a pane of glass. Not even Maurice could justify keeping Mason in net.

Based on your argument (a.k.a. "Argument from authority") no "expert" would ever trade Filip Forsberg for Martin Erat, right? Or PK Subban for Shea Weber? Or Taylor Hall for Adam Larsson? Or Tyler Seguin for Loui Eriksson? Or keep playing Mark Stuart and Ondrej Pavelec year after year? Because "experts" would never do something *really* stupid, right?

Good players can win without good coaching. (Winnipeg regular season)
Bad players can win with good coaching. (Vegas)
Good players can lose with bad coaching. (Winnipeg final series)

[Of course, it's not that simple and good/bad goaltending and "luck" plays a significant factor in the outcome of games.]

You certainly seem to like the histrionics: "Eddie Shore, old-time hockey", "superstar Brendan Lemieux"... It's probably pointless trying to get you to understand.

You base your arguments on pure conjecture. How about trying some actual facts instead of what you think you know? All of your points are either hindsight or wild assumptions based on your personal opinion of Maurice.

Winnipeg didn't lose to Vegas because of poor coaching. It's definitely pointless trying to get you to understand that.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Aside from Schief, Stats and a couple Laine shots rung off the posts who was ever a threat to score in the series? I'll stick to Fleury had an easy time with the Jets, not saying he didn't play well, no he didn't let in any soft ones like the guy on the ice across from him but for the most part everything was pretty routine and he stopped shots that any decent NHL goalie should and would.

Even Helle made the comment that Vegas took that 1/2 second away from us that these guys when they get that they score - they played us tight. He was spot on with that comment. We didn't have as much time and space or as many clean looks that we usually have to generate offence.

 

[Ducky10]

Even Helle made the comment that Vegas took that 1/2 second away from us that these guys when they get that they score - they played us tight. He was spot on with that comment. We didn't have as much time and space or as many clean looks that we usually have to generate offence.

I'm not sure most people dispute that. Many have credited Vegas for playing well, they did and worked hard. The Jets still had opportunities and played well enough to win pretty much every game. At the end of the day, great goaltending and some good fortune undid average goaltending and absolutely no good fortune. Helle also commented on the absurd amount of luck Vegas seemed to have.

It was easily the story of the series.

 

[The Blue Baron]

Are you kidding his leash has never been longer in this town. He could a Todd McClelland type year and still be around in 2020/2021.

 

[Weezeric]

Some people have made up their mind about Maurice. Go 81-1 in a season and they would blame him for the one loss.

That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

It's funny how the biggest Chevy haters have switched over to Maurice. If a team had so much success with such an awful coach, then Chevy must be one of the greatest team builders of all time.

 

[KingBogo]

Some people have made up their mind about Maurice. Go 81-1 in a season and they would blame him for the one loss.

That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

It's funny how the biggest Chevy haters have switched over to Maurice. If a team had so much success with such an awful coach, then Chevy must be one of the greatest team builders of all time.

It's tough when you start running out of targets to blame. You have to double down on the few you believe are left. It looks like Maurice, Little and Toby drew the short straws.

 

[White Out 902]

It's tough when you start running out of targets to blame. You have to double down on the few you believe are left. It looks like Maurice, Little and Toby drew the short straws.

Have you considered the arguments others are making are of merit?

 

[KingBogo]

Have you considered the arguments others are making are of merit?

No coach or player is perfect and all are worthy of some criticism. But a coach that brings his team from 87 to 114 points, from well out of the playoffs to#2 in the regular season and then to the conference final, and center and defenseman whose underlying numbers suggest they were easily a net positive both in the regular season and playoffs should not be the scapegoats for only making it to the final 4.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Making it to the final four is difficult, but is not as hard as some make it out. Just on averages, you should make it once every 7.75 years. We are slightly ahead of that of that average. Where we are below average frequency is making second round, or making the playoffs period.

 

[surixon]

On the topic of Maurice's short comings. His short comings are mostly tactical/quick adjustments in nature. It theoretically should be very easy to compensate for it by bringing in strong tactical associate coach to handle in game adjustments. What he is very strong at on the otherhand (Communication, building relationships) is a harder quality to find.

I think in the future you will see a greater degree of specialization amongst coaching staffs. No one is an expert at all things.

 

[Ducky10]

The title of this thread needs to ne changed to, Paul Maurice, How Long is his Leash.

Because it's not short at all.

 

[tbcwpg]

Have you considered the arguments others are making are of merit?

It's at a point where winning is in spite of Maurice, and losing is all because of him.

Making it to the final four is difficult, but is not as hard as some make it out. Just on averages, you should make it once every 7.75 years. We are slightly ahead of that of that average. Where we are below average frequency is making second round, or making the playoffs period.

The NHL doesn't work that way. Too much human input for it to be just a "mathematical average".

 

[Weezeric]

Making it to the final four is difficult, but is not as hard as some make it out. Just on averages, you should make it once every 7.75 years. We are slightly ahead of that of that average. Where we are below average frequency is making second round, or making the playoffs period.

Ya, that's how the NHL works. That's why 4 teams have won cups in the last 9 years!

 

[Hunter368]

The title of this thread needs to ne changed to, Paul Maurice, How Long is his Leash.

Because it's not short at all.

Agreed

People who think he's on a short leash are delusional and haven't been watching this organization for the last seven year. PMO isn't going anywhere next year.

 

[kelsier]

I don't think he's on a short leash. Obviously he has some sort of "sauna culture" (a Finnish tradition where the bosses get drunk, bond and make decisions while enjoying the hot steam) going for him with the big shots in the organization. I do think he was out-coached by Gallant however and after losing playoff series to a pretty severely inferior team, it's not surprising to see him being subjected to scrutiny of which some are well warranted. I would love to have someone like Gallant take over the coaching for the Jets, but obviously that's not happening, so will just have to settle for what's there.

 

[Board Bard]

Agreed

People who think he's on a short leash are delusional and haven't been watching this organization for the last seven year. PMO isn't going anywhere next year.

Nobody thinks Maurice is going anywhere next year, or even the year after. We just wish he would.

 

[Positive]

Even good players can lose with good coaching. (Winnipeg final series)

[Of course, it's not that simple and good/bad goaltending and "luck" plays a significant factor in the outcome of games.]

Fixed it for you.